4.7 Article

Detecting Drought-Induced Tree Mortality in Sierra Nevada Forests with Time Series of Satellite Data

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs9090929

关键词

forest; drought; Sierra Nevada; MODIS; tree mortality; California; remote sensing

资金

  1. National Institute of Food and Agriculture [CA-D-LAW-2296-H]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A five-year drought in California led to a significant increase in tree mortality in the Sierra Nevada forests from 2012 to 2016. Landscape level monitoring of forest health and tree dieback is critical for vegetation and disaster management strategies. We examined the capability of multispectral imagery from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) in detecting and explaining the impacts of the recent severe drought in Sierra Nevada forests. Remote sensing metrics were developed to represent baseline forest health conditions and drought stress using time series of MODIS vegetation indices (VIs) and a water index. We used Random Forest algorithms, trained with forest aerial detection surveys data, to detect tree mortality based on the remote sensing metrics and topographical variables. Map estimates of tree mortality demonstrated that our two-stage Random Forest models were capable of detecting the spatial patterns and severity of tree mortality, with an overall producer's accuracy of 96.3% for the classification Random Forest (CRF) and a RMSE of 7.19 dead trees per acre for the regression Random Forest (RRF). The overall omission errors of the CRF ranged from 19% for the severe mortality class to 27% for the low mortality class. Interpretations of the models revealed that forests with higher productivity preceding the onset of drought were more vulnerable to drought stress and, consequently, more likely to experience tree mortality. This method highlights the importance of incorporating baseline forest health data and measurements of drought stress in understanding forest response to severe drought.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据